Cited by 137Electronic Health Records SystemsUsability and User Interface DesignClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

A framework for analyzing the cognitive complexity of computer-assisted clinical ordering

Open access
Horsky, Jan, Kaufman, David R, Oppenheim, Michael I, Patel, Vimla L·2003·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

Computer-assisted provider order entry is a technology that is designed to expedite medical ordering and to reduce the frequency of preventable errors. This paper presents a multifaceted cognitive methodology for the characterization of cognitive demands of a medical information system. Our investigation was informed by the distributed resources (DR) model, a novel approach designed to describe the dimensions of user interfaces that introduce unnecessary cognitive complexity. This method evaluates the relative distribution of external (system) and internal (user) representations embodied in system interaction. We conducted an expert walkthrough evaluation of a commercial order entry system, followed by a simulated clinical ordering task performed by seven clinicians. The DR model was employed to explain variation in user performance and to characterize the relationship of resource distribution and ordering errors. The analysis revealed that the configuration of resources in this ordering application placed unnecessarily heavy cognitive demands on the user, especially on those who lacked a robust conceptual model of the system. The resources model also provided some insight into clinicians' interactive strategies and patterns of associated errors. Implications for user training and interface design based on the principles of human-computer interaction in the medical domain are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1532-0464(03)00062-5

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Only five studies have examined overall safety and effectiveness.

    “Although some measures of error showed improvement, overall safety and effectiveness have been addressed in only five studies.[21][22][23][24][25]”

    From EHR Safety: The Way Forward to Safe and Effective Systems (2008) · cites this paper as [24]

  • The fourth study, in the same hospital, found no significant mortality change.

    “The fourth study, conducted in the same hospital, showed no significant change in mortality.24”

    From EHR Safety: The Way Forward to Safe and Effective Systems (2008) · cites this paper as [24]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Horsky, J., Kaufman, D. R., Oppenheim, M. I., & Patel, V. L.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Northwell Health (US)
Corresponding author
Horsky, Jan
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-02
Volume
36
Issue
1-2
Pages
4-22
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2107373141
Cited by
137
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
FWCI
15.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. National Library of Medicine (LM07079, LM-07079-09, T15LM007079)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
cognitive complexity, health information systems, user interface design, cognitive demand, conceptual model, user training
MeSH terms
Cognition, Database Management Systems, Decision Making, Computer-Assisted, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Patient Admission, Software Validation, Statistics as Topic, Task Performance and Analysis, User-Computer Interface, Databases, Factual, Information Storage and Retrieval, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Medical Errors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review